Qrow

That may still happen in the Christmas errata, but I think it was too early for them to do any point changes to fyreslayers in this errata. The battletome is barely 2 months old and is not dominating the competitive scene like some other allegiances are. On a different note, has anyone had success with doomseekers? They seem to be a straight downgrade from grimwrath berzerkers.

Seems we got out pretty much untouched from the big FAQ, though they did confirm that we can attempt to cast every prayer that a priest knows, as long as it can been attempted in that turn previously, which is great.

DoK already got nerfed in the GHB, to nerf them again so quickly would be in very poor taste. For the others, I feel lije they are being very moderate in their changes, which isn't a terrible thing. And confirmation of bi-yearly point update! This is the best part of this update for me, so glad to hear that they are going to make more consistant updates, it will help them fine tune game balance and fix issues that arise much earlier.

FeC, LoN, HoS are all 'meta' armies and are performing just fine without being forced to run massive hordes. That is 3 of the top 5 performing armies that are not reliant on spamming hordes. I want to see battleshock immunity become much less prevalent, which would cause horde armies to play smarter and make spamming horde units become a risk/reward mechanic. However, to claim that every top army relies on spamming massive hordes is being disingenuous.

My solution would be simple, GW just needs to stop giving out large bubbles that ignore battlshock to every army that gets a 2.0 battletome. Make CPs important to use defensively so that you need to pick what unit doesn't take a battleshock test, instead of "I'll use one CP to ignore all battleshock for units within 26" or having a free ability that can be used multiple times to make units immune to battleshock. Skaven and DoK horde army compositions would be much easier to deal with if they didn't ignore the mechanism already in the base game that is supposed to make running hordes a risk/reward dilemma. That said, while I really would like to see battleshock become an important phase of the game again, I don't really have to much of an issue with the horde meta in AoS. I think those armies are popular and high performing for reasons other than their use of horde units

Ah, so they run on valve time, that explains why I'm still waiting on the forbidden power errata. Thank you.

Has there been any word about the early july errata for the newer battletomes? I want to order the last few things for my army, but I don't want to risk wasting money if there are major changes.

My god, that is terrible. I just really want the forbidden power FAQ to come out, there are so many questions about the legion of grief that dramatically impact on the way it is played and we have no answers to any of them yet. At this rate I'm not honestly sure if we will see the FP errata before the july errata for the newer battletomes.

Yeah, I was writing a correction in my previous post when your reply came through. It's really disappointing that GW doesn't incorperate their FAQs into the newer versions of the rules. I mean, that is a very basic expectation when releasing an updated set of rules; any changes or clarifications made to older versions should be present natively in the newer version. Small gripe, but still frustrating.

Page 54 of the 2019 GHB under the battalions section. The GHB, being the latest publication, takes precedence over previous FAQs as far as I am aware; so until they reiterate those points in a new errata, Tohshi is correct. Correction: it is worded exactly the same as the 2018 GHB, and will probably see the same errata as the previous one. Kinda dumb for GW to not actually fix the wording in the 2019 version.

Page 54 of the 2019 GHB confirms that we can take nighthaunt battalions in LoG allegiance. See attached picture, that is indisputable proof; can we take nighthaunt units? Yes we can, therefore we can take nighthaunt battalions.

Where is this said? As a LoG player, I would love to be able to quote this and take battalions

Yep, the have a point cost. I like them and have a Bael-grimnir + lords of vostarg list I will be trying out once my army is fully painted, depending on the july errata they may become even more interesting. Link with pictures of the WD stuff: https://m.imgur.com/a/R5OW4AY

White dwarf hero is a slight step above a regular runefather on magmadroth, command trait allows a hero to immediately fight with all its weapons in the hero phase, but only one a 4+, one extra attack with its grandaxe and a 5+ to inflict the -1 to hit. So it is a slight trade off, especially when you factor in the other potential general traits and artifacts. The battalions are meh, lords of vostarg has the same requirements as LotL but instead of attacking twice in the combat phase, you get to use one command ability for free. Given how reserved the changes to other factions have been in GHB2019, I wouldn't expect more than a 20 point increase to HGB, especially with how limited the unit variety is in FS. The FS battletome has only been out for two months and there are far more dominating allegiances creating problems right now.

They announced on the GHB matched play page that there will be a PDF update for all the latest armies (not including slaanesh). I too worry about being knee-jerked into non-competetiveness, especially given the changes suggested by the community, but given how conservative the GHB changes were and the fact the book is barely two months old I think any changes will be minor.

For abilities like icon of grimnir, prayer of ash and other "wholly within" type requirements, do the units need to remain wholly within range of the models to keep the buff? For example, if a unit is affected by both the icon of grimnir and searing ash during the hero phase, but then charges outside of the 12" bubbles of those abilites, will it keep the buffs until the next hero phase?

Unfortunately, there is no definitive 100% correct answer to this question yet, we are all waiting on GW to release an errata that verifies exactly what we have access too. The forum is split, some are sure we will get access while other are certain that we will not. I personally hope that we get access to at least the shrieker host, even if only the shreiker host, because it would be great in LoG while it is only mediocre in nighthaunt. Hell, I was talking with a mate who plays LoN on the weekend who idly speculated on a amended shrieker host that needs lady olynder instead of a tomb banshee; it won't happen but it would be a great addition to LoG.

How have people found meeting engagements? I'm not interested in the balance and summon issues that have already been discussed, but can you see them becoming a competetive format and what tactics seem to work? I have found planning lists for it to be pretty difficult. There are so many ideas I have seen posted for new units that it really suprises me they didn't add more, especially during the recent 2.0 release. I would love a gore-gruntas style unit, just a middle ground unit between the infantry and the magmadroths.

Mate, I 100% feel this point here. Nerf HGB, then what do FS have? Even with a point reduction vulkites damage output is nothing great; auric hearthguard maybe, FS become a range spam army? Alright, the they can use... oh, nothing. Because they have 3 units. 1 of them is great, one is alright and the other is a wet noodle. This next part is in no way aimed at you @Vextol, just wanted to add that so you know I'm saying this at you. Out of funsies I have fixed AoS balance issues by adopting the same suggested balancing baseline for HGB to other troubling units. I chose an extremely conservative basline set; HBG being increased to 140 and the horde bonus removed (instead of the max suggested 180 and horde bonus removed). This would mean and increase from 600 to 840 point; or a 40% total increase in cost. Additionally, using the win percentage of FS as a baseline, i have factored in army win percentage as an additional variable. For example; skaven vs FS is 58.4 - 51.8 = 6.6 or 6.6%. Together with our baseline of 40%, the equation for skaven units will be base (1.4) plus army difference (0.066) for a total of 1.466 or a 46.6% increase in cost. Remember, as per a base example of HGB, all horde bonuses will be removed. As such, here is how to fix the balance of AoS: SKAVEN: 1.4 + .066 = 1.466 verminlord warpseer: 380 Plague monks: 100/400 FeC: 1.4 + .123 = 1.523 Ghoul king on terror ghiest: 610 Slaanesh: 1.4 + .103 = 1.503 Keeper of Secrets: 540 IDK: 1.4 + .067 = 1.467 Akhelian morrsarr guard: 230/920 (based on pre-GHB2019 point costs) DoK: 1.4 + .124 = 1.524 Witch aelves: 150/450 (based on pre-GHB2019 costs to show how wrong GW got their point changes) There we are mates, all fixed. Feel free to use the formula on all overperforming units you see. And in case it isn't obvious, I'm being outrageously sarcastic. But, it is worth knowing, for comparison sake, that I was genuinely conservative in the baseline. People are asking for a 40-60 point increase for HGB AND the removal of the horde bonus, I did all this stupid working out on an only 20 point increase and removal of horde bonus.

Grimghast reapers? Yeah, they can still be taken in LoN, but they now cost 160/420.

The table is from the start of this year, not the start of AoS, I have attached an additional table that compares 2018 results to 2019 results. FS have gone from a 45.5% to a 51.8% win rate for a total increase of +6.3%; comparatively HoS have gone from a 51.7% to a 62.1% win rate (total increase of 10.5%) while being out for less time and FeC have gone from a 47.5% to a 64.1% win rate total increase of 16.6%). As shown, even when taking into account the new battletome, FS are not overperforming to the degree of other top armies. I actually do agree with you that the power should be shared between the other units, all of which do see play, but the battletome seem to be built around a HGB core and no amount of point changes will stop people taking it. My main problem stems from: A. People refusing to adapt; take chaff, bring a wall, snipe the heroes, play the objective, a brisk walking pace would do the trick. It is literally one 600 point blob of 4" mov, that must stay fully within 12" of several heroes to get to the level of power everyone complains about. B. The massive overnerfing people call for; 360 points is massive, change the rules of the lords of the lodge to something else, limit the double attack ability. Seriously, it would be like if I suggested a 360+ point increase to verminlord warpseer and GKoTG lists. Are they overperforming? Yes, do they need to be made redundant? No.

It is, pretty much all their buffs are completely within 12-18".

The attached statistical breakdown (retrieved from https://thehonestwargamer.com/aos-2-2-final-stats-13th-june-2019/) is accurate as of the 13th of june. If we are going to discuss balance based on win rate then lets actually provide the data. On the FS side, they have a 51.8% win rate, even with "the best melee unit in the game". I can see why people are calling for a nerf, but I am beginning to suspect that this super unit build is exactly what GW designed them for. You have one massive, unkillable unit. It can move 4", hit like a truck, absorb damage like a tank, but costs almost a third of your entire army and loses a massive amount of power if the squishy squishy heroes that buff it die. It is literally FSs gimmick, like HoS forcing you to attack last. Now say it gets nerfed, I think it will go up around 20 points, not the 40+lose horde bonus that everyone suggests. Ok, cool. How will you compensate FS for that hit? FS have exactly 3 units, they can't simply adapt the builds like other armies can. If the 360 point increase in the cost of a full unit of HGB goes through, then a 51.8% win rate army will have taken the hardest nerf any AoS army has seen so far. 51.8% win rate is not offensive, HoS have been out for less time but you can still see how they immediately started became one of the top 5 with a 62.1% win rate. FS are clearly designed for synergistic buffing, they have terrible board control and one good unit. This is why I was concerned about the idea of 3 month or less changes to armies, instead of adapting their own lists to beat this new enemy, people want every new thing adapted to be beaten by their current builds. Take chaff units, use the movement decreasing endless spells or even just summon the prismatic palisade and block off a portion of the map. The that terrifying 600 point unit with 4" move will have to, very slowly, plod around it.

And shoot the fireborn; they have terrible bravery and are faster than most of our heroes, so it can be difficult to keep them in range for inspiring presence. Even just one dead fireborn can cause another 4 wound model to disappear from a bravery role of 6. However, if they get into combat they will hurt you.

Yeah, I originally wanted to run hermdar (I forget the objective way to much, it would force me to play it), but now I'm going to go Vorstag with Bael-grimnir and the lords of vorstag battalion. I think this situation is the risk that is taken when an army that relies a lot on buffs is made. If all those buffs are layered on one decent unit, it become overwhelming.